How Trump Could Re-Boot On Immigration
A legal, humane, and more effective approach is possible.
There is a giant paradox at the heart of the Tump administration’s immigration policy. On the surface, it’s a huge success. Trump has all but ended the wave of largely fraudulent asylum-seeking migrants at the Southern border. In December 2023, there were almost 250,000 migrant encounters at the Southern border. In March of this year, there were just over 7,000. Yes, Biden helped by finally limiting asylum eligibility, bringing the total down to 58,000 last August. But still the total collapse in pressure is striking. That was Trump’s core promise; and he has achieved it in swift and comprehensive fashion.
So why has he never once gone to the border and bragged about this? And why are his immigration policies — his strongest issue — now slightly underwater in the polls?
It’s the authoritarianism, stupid. The attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime, for example, is clearly illegal — and sure enough, it was just shut down by a federal judge. The abandonment of meaningful due process and habeas corpus in grabbing suspects off the streets and sending them to a foreign gulag has also violated some very basic American ideals. The courts have begun to ratchet this back (too late for some) and the public is rightly revolted.
And the government surveillance of the speech and writing of foreign students to deport those aggressively opposing Israel’s war in Gaza is deeply hostile to free speech. Most of us would be glad to see protestors who committed crimes like trespassing, harassment, and violence deported forthwith. But casting a pall over strong criticism of a foreign country engaged in a highly controversial war feels like the McCarthy era — not least because the law was passed in 1952!
Then there are the police-state tactics. Men in masks and balaclavas seizing and bundling students into dark vans — without initially identifying themselves — feels like Putin’s Russia. The public arrests of judges unsettles everyone. The horror stories of citizen children being deported and of harmless people being detained for weeks on end because of a minor error seems an exercise in intimidation and fear. I’m spooked enough not to travel abroad for a while until we have a better idea of how widespread the intimidation and abuse is.
There is a reason for this over-reach, of course. The Biden administration was so negligent in enforcement of immigration law and so intent on expediting mass migration, they allowed in far more people than the immigration system could possibly handle, and effectively encouraged even more people to flock here. And it’s much, much easier to wave millions into the country than to remove them afterwards. So the Trump peeps say they are merely matching lawlessness with lawlessness — to prevent the familiar ratchet in which mass migration never really ends. And they obviously have a point.
The other factor is that deportation numbers were bound to seem much higher when the border was insecure — because many were simply turned back right away at the border itself. So Trump now sees his deportation numbers as lower than Obama’s and can’t psychologically tolerate that. So instead of explaining this (which he easily could), he flails around with ugly, authoritarian tactics, discrediting the entire project.
Is there a saner, legal, and humane way to deport millions? Of course there is. (Obama did it to some extent, though he too ignored the law on DACA.) It would require action from the Congress and it might take longer, but it would retain broad support and make a change more durable. It might even get some Democratic support.
Here’s a rough sketch of the alternative. Drop the AEA, and follow the law. If you don’t want foreign students who don’t like Israel, weed them out in the visa process before they get here. No First Amendment issue there. (For the record, I oppose this entirely, but if you’re doing it, this is the better way.) And then pour resources into expediting legal deportations to end the insane backlog of cases. How? Invest massively in the immigration court system and humane detention.
Both are important. Yet the current GOP proposal is massively geared toward detention. It increases funding for detention by 364 percent to $45 billion, and leaves a measly $1.25 billion for judges over five years (up by just 30 percent). That’s funding worthy of a budding police state, not for a legal program to deport illegal aliens.
Then streamline the deportation process. If someone is already subject to a final order for deportation, for example, and is found by an ICE agent, a simple review by an ICE supervisor to ensure that the person is who they think he is, and has no reason to be allowed to stay, should be sufficient due process to put him on an airplane.
Then tackle employers of illegal immigrants. Pass a mandatory national E-Verify law to ensure that no one can be hired in America without checking with the national database for legal workers. Employers who violate the law can face stiff penalties — and public shaming. You could phase this in to prevent a sudden collapse in employment in agriculture and construction, but the mere passage would mean a wave of self-deportations and end any incentive for more migrants to come here. The latest polling shows this policy has majority support up to 70 percent, including Democrats, in the swing state of Ohio. A 2019 Zogby poll showed 75 to 85 percent support in seven swing states (OH, PA, FL, AZ, MI, WI, and SC).
Then it seems to me we have to tighten the entire idea of asylum. It made sense during the Cold War, but as climate change and political dysfunction have super-charged big population movements from South to North, we need to adjust. Regrettable I know, but anything else will swamp us. Asylum should be limited to political or religious persecution in undemocratic regimes — and not for the host of other reasons now permitted; it should apply only to the first country an asylum-seeker enters; and there should be an annual cap on the numbers allowed.
All of this needs legislation, of course, something to which Trump seems pathologically averse. But since he ran on this issue, and has majority support, and his party controls both houses of Congress, it is perfectly possible with political will. What he is currently doing — unconstitutional, cruel, and increasingly unpopular in its authoritarian overreach — is a dead-end that could result in ever greater abuses, as Trump gets angry at the lack of progress.
There is another, far more American, way forward. Why not take it?
(Note to readers: This is an excerpt of The Weekly Dish. If you’re already a paid subscriber, click here to read the full version. This week’s issue also includes: my reaction to the new HHS report on “gender affirming care” for kids; a pod debate with Byron York over Trump’s first 100 days; reader dissents over Pope Francis; 10 notable quotes from the week in news, including two Yglesias Awards; 17 pieces on Substack we recommend on a variety of topics; a Mental Health Break of a backyard Rube Goldberg; a window from the South Park in NC; and, of course, the results of the View From Your Window contest — with a new challenge. Subscribe for the full Dish experience!)
From a newcomer to the Dish:
I subscribed purely on the basis of this piece, “Why I Loved Pope Francis.” I read it as I sat on a park bench in Parc de Passy watching my two daughters play as the sun set over Paris. To pair such a beautiful moment with such beautiful writing was a rare gift, thank you.
From a long-time subscriber:
I want to thank you for being a touchstone for me over the past five years or so. I’ve been a paying Dishhead now for years, and the $5 a month is one of the best bargains in my life. I look forward all week to reading your column and listening to your podcast. I obviously don’t agree with all of your opinions, but the depth of your knowledge, thought, and transparent authenticity has shifted my views on many issues. The Dish helps me stay sane!
Home News
The Dish just hit 200,000 subscribers! Just a coincidence that Chris and I are taking a spring break next week — but the Dishcast will arrive on time as usual.
The End Of Gender Madness?
In the last couple of weeks, two big events have happened in the world of gender politics.
(Read the rest of that piece here, for paid subscribers.)
New On The Dishcast: Byron York
Byron is a political journalist. He was a news producer for CNN in the early years, a reporter for The American Spectator, and the White House correspondent for National Review. He’s currently the chief political correspondent for Washington Examiner and a contributor to Fox News. His most recent book is the 2020 bestseller, Obsession: Inside the Washington Establishment’s Never-Ending War on Trump. We chewed over the recent political past and then got on to Trump, where things got stickier but still friendly.
Listen to the episode here. There you can find two clips of our convo — on Clinton Derangement Syndrome in the ‘90s, and Trump bungling his gains on immigration. That link also takes you to commentary on our recent episodes on Covid — with Francis Collins, and the other with Frances Lee and Steve Macedo — as well as readers on my tribute to Pope Francis.
Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, David Graham on Project 2025, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Walter Isaacson on Ben Franklin, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.
Dissents Of The Week
First off, an apology.
We ran a dissent last week impugning two researchers, Matt Ridley and Alina Chen, to which I responded: “Obviously, I don’t have the expertise to judge what our reader is saying.” In retrospect, that wasn’t good enough, when someone granted anonymity accuses two named researchers of dishonesty. You can read the original email here. It’s from Zach Hensel, a microbial researcher with a lab in Portugal. Ridley responds:
Your recent substack includes an outrageous defamation of me and my co-author Alina Chan. The “expert” says:
You should check out the stuff Alina Chan and Matt Ridley deleted from Viral— their lab leak book — between editions when it was no longer true. It’s infinitely more dishonest than anything you figure scientists did to downplay “lab leak” origins:
This is a shocking misrepresentation. When the paperback of our book was published we updated the book to include newly published information. We said so plainly. There are detailed sections expanding on these points in the “Paperback Update” to the Epilogue. Maybe the expert failed to read the Paperback Update?
We explained how these new findings changed some aspects of the search for the origin but definitely did not settle it, let alone discredit our previous recounting of the facts. How is that conceivably dishonest — let alone “infinitely more so” — than the deceptions of the public by several scientists to discredit any lab leak hypothesis that have been revealed?
His email continues in detail on the pod page. Check it out.
On my tribute to Pope Francis last week, a “convinced evangelical” writes:
Thank you for your touching prose on the life and ministry of Pope Francis. However, I was frustrated that he seemed more concerned about matters relating to social justice and inclusion than the theology of the Catholic Church laid out in the catechism. He also seemed to embrace ambiguity at a time when clarity was desperately needed.
Read the rest of that dissent here, along with my response to it and two others. As always, please keep the dissents coming: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
You can follow more Dish discussion in my Notes feed. One of my notes this week:
Reading a review in the LRB by Alan Hollinghurst on some 20th Century gay history in Britain, I read this, from the year in which I was born, 1963:
George Brinham, a former chairman of the Labour Party, met 16-year-old Laurence Somers in the street, took him out to tea and the pictures, and back in his flat put his arms around him and said: ‘Give us a kiss.’ Somers struck him three or four times on the head with a glass decanter and killed him. The defence argued that ‘one is entitled to kill if a man commits a forcible and atrocious crime against you.’ The judge agreed that ‘this is about as clear a case of provocation as it is possible to have’ and told the jury to ignore the murder charge; Somers was then found not guilty of manslaughter.
Every now and again when speaking of “oppression”, it’s good to remember what that actually meant in my own lifetime.
In The ‘Stacks
This is a feature in the paid version of the Dish spotlighting about 20 of our favorite pieces from other Substackers every week. This week’s selection covers subjects such as the rapidly falling economy, the Canadian elections, and guacamole. Below are a few examples, followed by a brand new substack:
A detransitioner describes “how transition makes dysphoria worse without you realizing it.”
Magdalena Wallhoff recounts her near-death experience with an avalanche.
Chris Matthews revives his show on Substack. Congrats, old buddy!
Here’s a list of the substacks we recommend in general — call it a blogroll. If you have any suggestions for “In the ‘Stacks,” especially ones from emerging writers, please let us know: dish@andrewsullivan.com.
The View From Your Window Contest
Where do you think it’s located? Email your guess to contest@andrewsullivan.com. Please put the location — city and/or state first, then country — in the subject line. Proximity counts if no one gets the exact spot. Bonus points for fun facts and stories. The deadline for entries is Wednesday at 11.59 pm (PST). The winner gets the choice of a VFYW book or two annual Dish subscriptions. If you are not a subscriber, please indicate that status in your entry and we will give you a free month sub if we select your entry for the contest results (example here if you’re new to the VFYW). Contest archive is here. Happy sleuthing!
The results for this week’s window are coming in a separate email to paid subscribers later today. Last week, our biologist sleuth in Milwaukee commemorated an impressive run so far:
Did you know that this is the 100th animal report? To celebrate, I’ve created a powerpoint of all the animals.
If downloaded and viewed as a show in PowerPoint, it will be an interactive quiz. Folks can click on the animals to see their names and the places they were from. (I don’t have the wherewithal to share the show directly without downloading; it would require saving it on OneDrive, which I don’t have.)
Thanks for 100 weeks of fun!
Here’s a snapshot of the first 25 weeks:
Fantastic. See you two Fridays from now, on May 16.